Page 80 of 123 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290 ... LastLast
Results 791 to 800 of 1229

Thread: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

  1. #791
    Guru
    Verthaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    09-08-16 @ 02:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,044

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Nope. I'd never compare interracial marriage to gay marriage.
    Then how do you compare the 2nd Amendment to gay marriage?

  2. #792
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    You bet.

    So let's try this ... think about those examples ... think about the possible reasons they are poor examples ... now think about how many of those reasons would go away and/or how many more reasons would actually be added by having 2 gay parents.
    The assumption here is that the purpose of marriage is to have children and be parents. There is little relation. You can be a parent without being married and you can be married without having children.

  3. #793
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,304

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Verthaine View Post
    Then how do you compare the 2nd Amendment to gay marriage?
    Not me ... you're confused.
    I don't believe gay marriage should be covered by the 14th Amendment.
    So there's no Amendment analogy to be made.

  4. #794
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,304

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    The assumption here is that the purpose of marriage is to have children and be parents. There is little relation. You can be a parent without being married and you can be married without having children.
    I just saw this today and thought I'd reproduce it for moments like this ...
    Enjoy ...


    HERE YOU GO. REASONS WHY PEOPLE OPPOSE THE REDEFINITION OF "MARRIAGE:"
    Since you asked…

    1.) “Marriage” is the name of a sacrament that would be desecrated by redefining it. Christians are upset because it is like redefining “communion” to be something that is in opposition to their faith.

    2.) “Marriage” is a GENDER SPECIFIC version of a legal CIVIL CONTRACT. Gender specification is legal (e.g. gender-specific bathrooms, contract designations, maternity leave applications, college entrance forms, etc…). A civil contract should be extended to ALL people. However, by opening “marriage” and calling every union “marriage,” it opens the contract up to polygamists, incestuous relations, and anyone else.

    3.) The redefinition of “marriage” has specific legal consequences on those who may have religious, moral or tradition views on the matter. They are FORCED (by default due to the law) to change their public moral position on the matter — even if the notion of gay “marriage” is in opposition to their faith or clear conscience.

    4.) Homosexuals are not fighting for “rights” of the contract. They are fighting for the NAME — and redefining what the name means — because they know that this would have legal consequences in the future.

    5.) The redefinition of “marriage” will have major implications for businesses or organizations that disagree with it. While churches will not be forced (at least now) to perform “marriages” for homosexuals, what happens with businesses, private citizens or other religious institutions or organizations? What would happen if a Christian bookstore hires a man who suddenly “comes out” a few months later and wants insurance to cover his “spouse?” A single definition will make it difficult (or nearly impossible) for a specific business to cater to the legal demands of others.

    6.) Liberals have promised that churches and religious institutions will receive “conscientious objector” status for such things. However, they didn’t quite embrace that when it came to religious colleges dealing with abortion and contraceptive coverage requirements from Obamacare.

    7.) The state pushing a redefinition of “marriage” results in the state taking a moral position on a controversial issue at the whims of that small fringe group — while demanding that people who derive morality from religion, faith, culture, tradition or any other reason remain silent.

  5. #795
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:23 AM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,839

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    At least according to some polls - the whims of that small fringe group are actually how a majority of Americans views same sex marriage

    Gallup, May 2011 - For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage

    CNN/ORC June 2012 - 54% of Americans support same sex marriage

    Pew Research, March 2013 - Growing Support for Gay Marriage: Changed Minds and Changing Demographics | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  6. #796
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    I just saw this today and thought I'd reproduce it for moments like this ...
    Enjoy ...


    HERE YOU GO. REASONS WHY PEOPLE OPPOSE THE REDEFINITION OF "MARRIAGE:"
    Since you asked…

    1.) “Marriage” is the name of a sacrament that would be desecrated by redefining it. Christians are upset because it is like redefining “communion” to be something that is in opposition to their faith.

    2.) “Marriage” is a GENDER SPECIFIC version of a legal CIVIL CONTRACT. Gender specification is legal (e.g. gender-specific bathrooms, contract designations, maternity leave applications, college entrance forms, etc…). A civil contract should be extended to ALL people. However, by opening “marriage” and calling every union “marriage,” it opens the contract up to polygamists, incestuous relations, and anyone else.

    3.) The redefinition of “marriage” has specific legal consequences on those who may have religious, moral or tradition views on the matter. They are FORCED (by default due to the law) to change their public moral position on the matter — even if the notion of gay “marriage” is in opposition to their faith or clear conscience.

    4.) Homosexuals are not fighting for “rights” of the contract. They are fighting for the NAME — and redefining what the name means — because they know that this would have legal consequences in the future.

    5.) The redefinition of “marriage” will have major implications for businesses or organizations that disagree with it. While churches will not be forced (at least now) to perform “marriages” for homosexuals, what happens with businesses, private citizens or other religious institutions or organizations? What would happen if a Christian bookstore hires a man who suddenly “comes out” a few months later and wants insurance to cover his “spouse?” A single definition will make it difficult (or nearly impossible) for a specific business to cater to the legal demands of others.

    6.) Liberals have promised that churches and religious institutions will receive “conscientious objector” status for such things. However, they didn’t quite embrace that when it came to religious colleges dealing with abortion and contraceptive coverage requirements from Obamacare.

    7.) The state pushing a redefinition of “marriage” results in the state taking a moral position on a controversial issue at the whims of that small fringe group — while demanding that people who derive morality from religion, faith, culture, tradition or any other reason remain silent.
    This is rightwing cant. Nobody is redefining marriage. Gays just want to get married, that's all.

    I refer you again to history: marriage used to mean that men controlled all the property (up until the 1970s in this country). So is that the tradition you want to hark back to?

    As I've noted before I'm for jettisoning the word "marriage" in civil law, and only having civil unions between consenting adults as the sole legal relationship for domestic partners. gay or straight. Then I'd give the word "marriage" to the churches and religions to do with what they want -- it just wouldn't have any force of law.

    But short of that, seems to me gay people should be allowed to participate in the legal system we have on an equal footing with everybody else.
    Last edited by head of joaquin; 04-05-13 at 08:59 PM.

  7. #797
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,920
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    But short of that, seems to me gay people should be allowed to participate in the legal system we have on an equal footing with everybody else.
    I agree. Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer?
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  8. #798
    Professor
    marywollstonecraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-13 @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,317

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    You bet.

    So let's try this ... think about those examples ... think about the possible reasons they are poor examples ... now think about how many of those reasons would go away and/or how many more reasons would actually be added by having 2 gay parents.
    since gays who become parents are generally more likely to be planning to have children ... the likelihood of these poor examples would be considerably reduced.

    I guess you could argue for a licence to be a parent, which would apply equally to ALL, whether gay or straight (ie, all who wanted children would have to meet certain criteria proving that they were up to the job) .... but apart from the fact that such a proposition sounds pretty offensive to most people, it would be extremely difficult to police, especially among the hetero community.
    Every political good carried to the extreme must be productive of evil.

  9. #799
    Professor
    marywollstonecraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-13 @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,317

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    This is rightwing cant. Nobody is redefining marriage. Gays just want to get married, that's all.

    I refer you again to history: marriage used to mean that men controlled all the property (up until the 1970s in this country). So is that the tradition you want to hark back to?

    As I've noted before I'm for jettisoning the word "marriage" in civil law, and only having civil unions between consenting adults as the sole legal relationship for domestic partners. gay or straight. Then I'd give the word "marriage" to the churches and religions to do with what they want -- it just wouldn't have any force of law.

    But short of that, seems to me gay people should be allowed to participate in the legal system we have on an equal footing with everybody else.
    I suspect the same types of people who were opposed to those changes would also been opposed to inter racial marriages:

    Anti-miscegenation laws, also known as miscegenation laws, were laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes also sex between members of different races. Such laws were first introduced in North America from the late seventeenth century onwards by several of the Thirteen Colonies, and subsequently by many US states and US territories and remained in force in many US states until 1967. After the Second World War, an increasing number of states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the remaining anti-miscegenation laws were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.
    Anti-miscegenation laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    and these would be the same people today who argue against gay marriage.

    While getting rid of the world "marriage" in civil law may be an option, there are still many gays who want to get married in their own church. I understand that some churches might feel that they can argue against that, and hark back to the scriptures, but on some levels, discrimination can be deemed as unchristian as well.
    Every political good carried to the extreme must be productive of evil.

  10. #800
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    I agree. Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer?
    Hey, that's actually a funny joke. A bit Rodney Dangerfieldesque, but not bad. I didn't think libertarians had the gene.

Page 80 of 123 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •